The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and evidence to prove charges under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, and the court's authority to quash proceedings based on abuse of process of law and lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the proceedings in C.C.No.415 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tiruvallur and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.415 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tiruvallur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC as against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a sole accused. Initially the second respondent herein lodged complainant on 20.06.2019 and the same was registered in Crime No.13 of 2019 for the offences under Section 498A, 406 & 506(i) of IPC as against four accused persons. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC as against the petitioner alone. The allegations are that the marriage took place between the petitioner and the second respondent on 26.06.2015 and at that time of marriage, the second respondent was presented 50 sovereign of jewels, 1½ Kg silver articles and other house hold articles by her parents. After their marriage, they lived in the mother-in-law's house only for 10 days and thereafter shifted their residence to Kerala, since her husband was working at Kerala. Thereafter, the family members of the petitioner harassed her and also demanded huge dowry to live with her husband. In fact, they also hided the petitioner herein and refused to live with the petitioner herein. On 07.08.2016 the defacto complainant was driven out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter on 24.08.2016, the petitioner issued notice for seeking divorce to the second respondent herein. All the accused persons are threatened her to give consent for divorce between the petitioner and second respondent. Further alleged that the gold jewels and also silver articles have been under custody of her in-laws and demanded huge dowry to re-union between the petitioner and the second respondent

2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the entire allegations are completely false and the complaint itself lodged after period of three years. Admittedly, the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial house on 07.08.2016, whereas the complaint lodged only on 20.06.2019. On the date of receipt of the complaint itself, the first respondent registered the case and on same day the investigating officer examined almost all the witnesses shown in the list of witnesses. He further submitted that in fact the in-laws of the petitioner filed a petition for not to harass before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15937 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 21.06.2019, directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry and take further action in accordance with law. Further observed that it is made clear that if the first respondent finds that it is a matrimonial dispute, the first respondent police shall relegate the parties to approach appropriate family Court. It clearly shows that this Court by an order dated 21.06.2019 only directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry. However the FIR has been registered on 20.06.2019. If at all the FIR registered on that day, definitely the respondent police would have represented before this Court that already FIR has been registered. Therefore, the FIR itself pre-dated one and on the date registration of FIR itself, all the list of witnesses have been examined by the first respondent

2.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner issued notice to the second respondent on 24.08.2016, thereby called upon the second respondent that the petitioner no longer wants to live with the second respondent at Thiruvallur and intended to file petition for divorce. On receipt of the same, on 27.08.2016, the second respondent's father along with one Rajakumar and others came to the petitioner's ho